![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
2601:3:f80:1b9:8474:b60a:7734:ecc7 (
talk ·
contribs) in the past. It was contested by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Unidan be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
How is Unidan worthy of a Wikipedia entry? Oh, he wrote popular Reddit comments, big fucking deal. -- 87.122.140.7 ( talk) 14:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This is a stupid article. Delete immediately. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.14.29.245 (
talk)
18:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
If we're gonna have a page for this guy, why not Gallowboob or Redditors who are you could argue are actually notable in the real world?
You'd still be stupid but they're more deserving than Unidan. Stupid page, should be deleted.
Necroflesh111 (
talk)
00:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
We cannot use Reddit as a reliable source to claim something is a "controversy". Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Except when it's about an internet persona and especially him, seeing as he's "famous" only on Reddit. Ravelair ( talk) 17:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The questionable nature of his being notable before is gone, as he has been banned from Reddit. I nominate for Speedy Deletion.
Screen317 ( talk) 20:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. To the people saying "keep the article, it answered my questions about him" you can go to Know Your Meme or the Daily Dot article that pops up when you google him, but this article lowers the bar for wikipedia standards as a whole right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.195.167 ( talk) 23:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
agreed. a forum power-user is not notable, especially one that no longer exists. Dru1138 ( talk) 15:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the article should be renamed "Ben Eisenkop" as Eisenkop is no longer a user on reddit, but is still notable because he appeared in TED talks and other events under that name.-- MJH92 talk 01:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
There was never notability (power-users on internet websites are not automatically notable) in the first place. Absolutely agree with the nomination. 2605:E000:3EC6:9900:15F6:15E2:FB03:A267 ( talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The fact that there is an argument about this shows that he is notable. -- Scientificaldan ( talk) 01:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Why does some obscure internet forum user from like 7 years ago even have a wikipedia page? this person is not notable in any tangible way Camdoodlebop ( talk) 01:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Tags are there for a reason. DO NOT DELETE THEM OR YOU WILL BE SERVED A WARNING. Ravelair ( talk) 10:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I actually came here, looking for information about him, because I heard some fuzz on the internet about him.
This article cleared all my questions perfectly and was a worth well read. Please keep the article, because it is informative and helped me find what I was looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.102.103 ( talk) 08:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion on moving this page to Unidan, because that's what he's most often referred to. Tutelary ( talk) 20:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an extremely poorly written page that has been categorized as "biography" of a person and holds no value. In fact, this page seems to exist only to discuss suspension of his account on a social media website.
This individual's fame is limited to a social media website and has no notable contribution or impact outside of it.
A popularized person or event on a social media website does not make them worthy of having a Wikipedia page dedicated to their biography. If anything, this article to me resembles a promotional article. This article would perhaps serve better on someone's blog or on other websites dedicated to slangs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaykeepsitreals ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I am an active power user of bodybuilding.com. I have done nothing notable, but have quite a big reputation amongst the bodybuilding.com community. This doesn't warrant me a wikipedia page. Mr.Eisenkop has done nothing of note, and does not deserve a wikipedia page. Should we now make an article for each and every student of biology in every university in the world? I can't fathom the thought process of the person who thought of creating this page. Unidan has an even worse reputation and was banned from Reddit for manipulating his votes, the same votes that made him popular, and the same votes that incited a person to create this page. He manipulated a website simply for attention, and attention he got. This article teaches me nothing.
Shtalic ( talk) 10:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Two years from now no one's going to know this name or have a reason to care this person ever existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.208.74 ( talk) 15:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to describe Unidan's actions as fraud. Vote fraud redirects to Electoral fraud, which is clearly about elections, and has legal implications. Yeah, okay, colloquially, it can be described as fraud, but Wikipedia should use a formal WP:TONE. Reddit doesn't use elections, it uses votes as a means of identifying useful or interesting comments, nothing more. Regardless of the ethical implications, there's no criminal element to Unidan's actions, at least not that is supported by sources. Implying that someone has committed a criminal act is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and should be supported by sources both in the article, and in the infobox. Grayfell ( talk) 01:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I am shocked this page exist. Unidan was briefly relevant on social media but has since fallen into total obscurity. If I didn't think people would keep it, I'd nominate it for deletion for the 5th time (but it seems pointless). Sure, it has good coverage but I'd argue that many people could be justified by the "good coverage" excuse, especially in this case where most of it refers to events now 4 years in the past.
Perhaps a "notable reddit users" page would be a good step, where people like Unidan and ViolentAcrez could go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbinecatholic ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The fact you guys are arguing about this so intensely proves he is note-worthy and should have his own article. I think you all need to seperate wikipedia ethics against your personal hatred for him; just because he did something crappy that follows what many seek in wikipedia articles (attention) does not mean he should be excluded. Scientificaldan ( talk) 01:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Stacecom and AlphabeticThing9: I'm starting a talk page discussion, as it is verging on edit warring regarding the short description. AlphabeticThing9, I agree with Stacecom that the description you have added several times is undue and tends to be misleading, and not within the caution required for WP:BLPs. I'm open to other short descriptions which include his ban. We could run it by WP:BLPN, if you feel so strongly. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 15:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
2601:3:f80:1b9:8474:b60a:7734:ecc7 (
talk ·
contribs) in the past. It was contested by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Unidan be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
How is Unidan worthy of a Wikipedia entry? Oh, he wrote popular Reddit comments, big fucking deal. -- 87.122.140.7 ( talk) 14:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This is a stupid article. Delete immediately. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.14.29.245 (
talk)
18:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
If we're gonna have a page for this guy, why not Gallowboob or Redditors who are you could argue are actually notable in the real world?
You'd still be stupid but they're more deserving than Unidan. Stupid page, should be deleted.
Necroflesh111 (
talk)
00:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
We cannot use Reddit as a reliable source to claim something is a "controversy". Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Except when it's about an internet persona and especially him, seeing as he's "famous" only on Reddit. Ravelair ( talk) 17:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The questionable nature of his being notable before is gone, as he has been banned from Reddit. I nominate for Speedy Deletion.
Screen317 ( talk) 20:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. To the people saying "keep the article, it answered my questions about him" you can go to Know Your Meme or the Daily Dot article that pops up when you google him, but this article lowers the bar for wikipedia standards as a whole right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.195.167 ( talk) 23:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
agreed. a forum power-user is not notable, especially one that no longer exists. Dru1138 ( talk) 15:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the article should be renamed "Ben Eisenkop" as Eisenkop is no longer a user on reddit, but is still notable because he appeared in TED talks and other events under that name.-- MJH92 talk 01:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
There was never notability (power-users on internet websites are not automatically notable) in the first place. Absolutely agree with the nomination. 2605:E000:3EC6:9900:15F6:15E2:FB03:A267 ( talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The fact that there is an argument about this shows that he is notable. -- Scientificaldan ( talk) 01:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Why does some obscure internet forum user from like 7 years ago even have a wikipedia page? this person is not notable in any tangible way Camdoodlebop ( talk) 01:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Tags are there for a reason. DO NOT DELETE THEM OR YOU WILL BE SERVED A WARNING. Ravelair ( talk) 10:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I actually came here, looking for information about him, because I heard some fuzz on the internet about him.
This article cleared all my questions perfectly and was a worth well read. Please keep the article, because it is informative and helped me find what I was looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.102.103 ( talk) 08:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion on moving this page to Unidan, because that's what he's most often referred to. Tutelary ( talk) 20:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an extremely poorly written page that has been categorized as "biography" of a person and holds no value. In fact, this page seems to exist only to discuss suspension of his account on a social media website.
This individual's fame is limited to a social media website and has no notable contribution or impact outside of it.
A popularized person or event on a social media website does not make them worthy of having a Wikipedia page dedicated to their biography. If anything, this article to me resembles a promotional article. This article would perhaps serve better on someone's blog or on other websites dedicated to slangs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaykeepsitreals ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I am an active power user of bodybuilding.com. I have done nothing notable, but have quite a big reputation amongst the bodybuilding.com community. This doesn't warrant me a wikipedia page. Mr.Eisenkop has done nothing of note, and does not deserve a wikipedia page. Should we now make an article for each and every student of biology in every university in the world? I can't fathom the thought process of the person who thought of creating this page. Unidan has an even worse reputation and was banned from Reddit for manipulating his votes, the same votes that made him popular, and the same votes that incited a person to create this page. He manipulated a website simply for attention, and attention he got. This article teaches me nothing.
Shtalic ( talk) 10:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Two years from now no one's going to know this name or have a reason to care this person ever existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.208.74 ( talk) 15:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to describe Unidan's actions as fraud. Vote fraud redirects to Electoral fraud, which is clearly about elections, and has legal implications. Yeah, okay, colloquially, it can be described as fraud, but Wikipedia should use a formal WP:TONE. Reddit doesn't use elections, it uses votes as a means of identifying useful or interesting comments, nothing more. Regardless of the ethical implications, there's no criminal element to Unidan's actions, at least not that is supported by sources. Implying that someone has committed a criminal act is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and should be supported by sources both in the article, and in the infobox. Grayfell ( talk) 01:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I am shocked this page exist. Unidan was briefly relevant on social media but has since fallen into total obscurity. If I didn't think people would keep it, I'd nominate it for deletion for the 5th time (but it seems pointless). Sure, it has good coverage but I'd argue that many people could be justified by the "good coverage" excuse, especially in this case where most of it refers to events now 4 years in the past.
Perhaps a "notable reddit users" page would be a good step, where people like Unidan and ViolentAcrez could go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbinecatholic ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The fact you guys are arguing about this so intensely proves he is note-worthy and should have his own article. I think you all need to seperate wikipedia ethics against your personal hatred for him; just because he did something crappy that follows what many seek in wikipedia articles (attention) does not mean he should be excluded. Scientificaldan ( talk) 01:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Stacecom and AlphabeticThing9: I'm starting a talk page discussion, as it is verging on edit warring regarding the short description. AlphabeticThing9, I agree with Stacecom that the description you have added several times is undue and tends to be misleading, and not within the caution required for WP:BLPs. I'm open to other short descriptions which include his ban. We could run it by WP:BLPN, if you feel so strongly. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 15:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)